[Trial Recap] 7th Hearing in Sedition Trial of Former President Yoon Suk-yeol (June 16, 2025)

 



🗓️ Hearing Overview

  • Date: June 16, 2025 

  • Location: Seoul Central District Court, Criminal Division 25 (Presiding Judge Ji Gui-yeon)

  • Defendant: Yoon Suk-yeol, Former President of South Korea

  • Key Witness: Kim Cheol-jin, Former Military Aide to Defense Minister

🔎 Key Developments

1. Shift in Yoon's Courtroom Demeanor

Former President Yoon, who had largely remained silent in prior hearings, broke his silence during the 7th hearing. He directly addressed the bench, stating his intention to speak after future witness examinations. He criticized the prosecution’s resistance to changes in the witness plan, saying:

“Is it because they lack confidence in their case?”

Yoon also explained his conduct after the National Assembly passed a resolution to lift martial law, claiming that he:

  • Respected the Assembly's intent despite procedural defects,

  • Ordered his aides to review the National Assembly Act,

  • Drafted a presidential statement for the martial law lift, and

  • Instructed military commanders to withdraw troops from the parliamentary premises.

2. Critical Testimony by Kim Cheol-jin

Kim Cheol-jin, who accompanied Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun during the martial law crisis, testified that:

“After the National Assembly’s resolution, President Yoon asked how many troops had been deployed. When Minister Kim replied ‘about 500,’ Yoon responded, ‘See? That’s not enough. We should have sent 1,000. What now?’”

The testimony corroborates suspicions that Yoon intended to overwhelm the legislature with military force. Kim stood firm under cross-examination, stating he had a clear recollection of the event.

Kim also recalled Minister Kim's phone conversation with a civilian, allegedly saying “Sang-won, what else can we do now?”—referring to Noh Sang-won, a former intelligence official believed to have been deeply involved in the sedition scheme.

3. Yoon's Reactions Outside Court

Outside the courtroom, Yoon engaged with the media for the first time since switching from an underground to ground-level entrance in May. While he avoided answering questions on:

  • His “1,000 troops” remark,

  • Potential summons by special prosecutors,

  • Police investigation,

He did comment when reporters blocked his view of supporters:

“Please step aside so I can see them.”

Later, he smiled and waved at supporters while ignoring further questions.

🔁 Points of Contention

  • Defense Argument: Yoon’s legal team argued the testimony contradicts the indictment’s claim that Yoon sought to minimize troop deployment.

  • Prosecution Position: The testimony supports allegations that Yoon sought to militarily obstruct the legislature's vote.

  • Procedural Dispute: Heated arguments over whether additional defense witnesses could be summoned and whether Yoon could speak after every witness.

📝 Analysis

The "1,000 troops" remark has emerged as a critical piece of testimony in the prosecution’s sedition case. The defendant’s abrupt willingness to engage both inside and outside court suggests a strategic shift. Meanwhile, the testimony by Kim Cheol-jin strengthens the narrative of military overreach and executive interference with the National Assembly.

🏷️ Tags

#YoonSukyeol #SeditionTrial #MartialLaw #1000TroopsRemark #SpecialProsecutor #SeoulCentralCourt #WitnessTestimony #KimCheoljin #NohSangwon #CourtroomDrama #KoreanPolitics #YouLawInsights





댓글

댓글 쓰기

이 블로그의 인기 게시물

Reevaluating the 10.26 Incident: The Retrial of Kim Jae-gyu and Its Impact on South Korean History

이미지
One of the Most Controversial Events in Modern South Korean History: The ‘10.26 Incident’ and the Recent Court Decision A South Korean court has decided to reopen the retrial of the late Kim Jae-gyu , the former director of the Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA), bringing the 10.26 Incident back into legal and historical evaluation after 45 years. This retrial is not merely a reconsideration of a past event but a significant opportunity to reassess the fairness of the original trial and to determine whether Kim’s actions were truly an act of insurrectional murder or a resistance effort to restore democracy . 🔍 What is the 10.26 Incident ? The 10.26 Incident refers to the assassination of President Park Chung-hee and Presidential Security Chief Cha Ji-chul by KCIA Director Kim Jae-gyu on October 26, 1979 . This incident marked the end of the Yushin regime and brought about a significant shift in South Korea’s political landscape. Following the assassination, Kim Jae...
자세한 내용 보기

South Korea’s Civil Code Revision: Key Changes and Implications

이미지
South Korea’s Civil Code Revision: Key Changes and Implications The South Korean government has introduced a major revision to the Civil Code, marking a significant legal modernization.  This reform aims to enhance clarity, align with global standards, and improve legal accessibility for both citizens and foreign residents. By addressing legal ambiguities and incorporating judicial precedents into statutory law, this revision is expected to enhance predictability in legal disputes. Key Reforms in the Civil Code Revision One of the most notable changes is the improvement of the breach of obligation system.  Previously, the Civil Code only had provisions on non-performance and delay but lacked explicit rules on partial performance.  The revised law clarifies this by defining breach as “when performance has not been completed” rather than “when performance becomes impossible.” Additionally, the scope of remedies such as restitution and periodic compensation has been expanded...
자세한 내용 보기

Korean Constitutional Court to Rule on President Yoon's Impeachment April 4th

이미지
  In a historic and politically charged moment, the Constitutional Court of South Korea is set to deliver its final verdict on the impeachment of President Yoon Suk-yeol. The court announced that the decision will be made public on Friday, April 4, 2025, at 11:00 AM , at the Grand Courtroom in Jongno-gu, Seoul. The announcement follows 111 days after the National Assembly passed the impeachment motion and 38 days after the final hearings concluded on March 25. The outcome of this ruling holds significant implications not just for the current administration but for the broader framework of constitutional law and democratic governance in South Korea. This pivotal moment comes amidst growing scrutiny from both political circles and the public, as the nation stands at the crossroads of legal accountability and executive authority. A Decision with Immediate Impact The court's verdict will determine whether President Yoon will continue to lead the country or be permanently removed f...
자세한 내용 보기